Settling it once and for all. Getting rid of Bargs: addition by subtraction?

Alright, let's get this whole addition by substraction thing settled once and for all, shall we? First, a personal disclosure: I feel that getting rid of Bargs is addition by subtraction, in that I feel the Raps play a better all-around game with him not playing. This has been the case for the past several years, in fact, if one discounts as an abberation those brief halcyon days last year when he seemed to "get" it.
What are the arguments for Bargs? It is said that he gives other Raps more space to operate because the opposition four or five has to come out to the three-point line to cover him. If that were the case, it stands to reason that the team's shooting percentage would be better with him on the floor, since the other four players would be having better looks thanks to the space afforded them. Similarly, the fact that Bargs draws his PF counterpart out to the three-point line should result in the Raps getting AT LEAST as good a percentage of all available rebounds as when he's off the court. Last (and least, IMHO, is the team's win-loss record both with him and without him (too many variables entere into it for this to be the be-all and end-all criterion). Also, points scored while he's on the court versus points scored when he's not; and same thing with points allowed. I think once all this is added up, we can determine with a bit more clairty whether he's a plus or a minus. Now, it goes without saying that any player is an asset to some degree, as a trade chip. So of course you don't want to just dump the guy. Statophile, get right on this, will ya?

I personally wouldn't mind bargs staying anymore, so long as his role is deeply cut into. If I never hear "he's our go to guy" in a press conference with Casey again, I'm fine with keeping him as a backup. I know he's bad but having him come off the bench would help us a lot in my opinion. His contract is ugly for a bench player though.

Alright, let's get this whole addition by substraction thing settled once and for all, shall we? First, a personal disclosure: I feel that getting rid of Bargs is addition by subtraction, in that I feel the Raps play a better all-around game with him not playing. This has been the case for the past several years, in fact, if one discounts as an abberation those brief halcyon days last year when he seemed to "get" it.
What are the arguments for Bargs? It is said that he gives other Raps more space to operate because the opposition four or five has to come out to the three-point line to cover him. If that were the case, it stands to reason that the team's shooting percentage would be better with him on the floor, since the other four players would be having better looks thanks to the space afforded them. Similarly, the fact that Bargs draws his PF counterpart out to the three-point line should result in the Raps getting AT LEAST as good a percentage of all available rebounds as when he's off the court. Last (and least, IMHO, is the team's win-loss record both with him and without him (too many variables entere into it for this to be the be-all and end-all criterion). Also, points scored while he's on the court versus points scored when he's not; and same thing with points allowed. I think once all this is added up, we can determine with a bit more clairty whether he's a plus or a minus. Now, it goes without saying that any player is an asset to some degree, as a trade chip. So of course you don't want to just dump the guy. Statophile, get right on this, will ya?

This is kind of obvious, but the argument for him is that he is one of the, if not the, best scorers on the team. Take the most simplistic argument. If you gave any player on our team the chance to go one on one against their defender and had to bet $10,000 on whether they would score (or get fouled). To me, that list is KL, DD and AB at the top. No one else is really even close. I would personally put my money on AB over DD (KL is probably a push).

ED? Are you kidding? Amir? Nope. LF? Not even without a defender! MP Nope. AA? Hes probably next after the four. AG? Please. TR .. maybe down the road, but right now hes just a step back shooter and struggles to get past his man (albeit hes my favourite rap BY far). JC cant get past his own man or create space for his own shot.

So .. Im not defending the guy or saying we should keep him .. but the answer as to the argument why is pretty obvious.

Does that mean he doesnt waste his skill by shooting stupid step back 20 footers? Of course not. Does that mean hes not a plug on D? Of course not. It just means that he has a legit NBA skill .. (and not many guys on our team do).

This is kind of obvious, but the argument for him is that he is one of the, if not the, best scorers on the team. Take the most simplistic argument. If you gave any player on our team the chance to go one on one against their defender and had to bet $10,000 on whether they would score (or get fouled). To me, that list is KL, DD and AB at the top. No one else is really even close. I would personally put my money on AB over DD (KL is probably a push).

ED? Are you kidding? Amir? Nope. LF? Not even without a defender! MP Nope. AA? Hes probably next after the four. AG? Please. TR .. maybe down the road, but right now hes just a step back shooter and struggles to get past his man (albeit hes my favourite rap BY far). JC cant get past his own man or create space for his own shot.

So .. Im not defending the guy or saying we should keep him .. but the answer as to the argument why is pretty obvious.

Does that mean he doesnt waste his skill by shooting stupid step back 20 footers? Of course not. Does that mean hes not a plug on D? Of course not. It just means that he has a legit NBA skill .. (and not many guys on our team do).

This is kind of obvious, but the argument for him is that he is one of the, if not the, best scorers on the team. Take the most simplistic argument. If you gave any player on our team the chance to go one on one against their defender and had to bet $10,000 on whether they would score (or get fouled). To me, that list is KL, DD and AB at the top. No one else is really even close. I would personally put my money on AB over DD (KL is probably a push).

ED? Are you kidding? Amir? Nope. LF? Not even without a defender! MP Nope. AA? Hes probably next after the four. AG? Please. TR .. maybe down the road, but right now hes just a step back shooter and struggles to get past his man (albeit hes my favourite rap BY far). JC cant get past his own man or create space for his own shot.

So .. Im not defending the guy or saying we should keep him .. but the answer as to the argument why is pretty obvious.

Does that mean he doesnt waste his skill by shooting stupid step back 20 footers? Of course not. Does that mean hes not a plug on D? Of course not. It just means that he has a legit NBA skill .. (and not many guys on our team do).

The problem is having a single NBA skill doesn't mean one is benifiting the team even if said team is lacking in said skills. This team lacks scoring? Sure. But that they are still a better and more successful team without one of their top scorer says something alot more significant.

I'd argue that one of the reasons this team has so few scorers is because Colangelo felt comfortable or confident (or deemed it necessary due to draft status/pay etc) to use Bargnani the way he has, and in turn has sought other players to cover for him rather than other players that could replace him or his role.

Besides, a 'scorer' may be the simplest thing to find in the NBA. A good scorer however is a different story. Bargnani has never shown, with any level of consistency, that he's willing to do what it takes to be a good scorer.

So while he is one of the few scorers this team has and it is an obvious excuse, that this team is better as a whole without him even on the floor is an even better one for addition by subtraction. Bargnani is an NBA calibre player, but at a much smaller usage, on a much lower contract and with a significantly different role. He's not necessary here in Toronto, and right now he is just eating up cap space and minutes which is simply wasting resources.

The problem is having a single NBA skill doesn't mean one is benifiting the team even if said team is lacking in said skills. This team lacks scoring? Sure. But that they are still a better and more successful team without one of their top scorer says something alot more significant.

I'd argue that one of the reasons this team has so few scorers is because Colangelo felt comfortable or confident (or deemed it necessary due to draft status/pay etc) to use Bargnani the way he has, and in turn has sought other players to cover for him rather than other players that could replace him or his role.

Besides, a 'scorer' may be the simplest thing to find in the NBA. A good scorer however is a different story. Bargnani has never shown, with any level of consistency, that he's willing to do what it takes to be a good scorer.

So while he is one of the few scorers this team has and it is an obvious excuse, that this team is better as a whole without him even on the floor is an even better one for addition by subtraction. Bargnani is an NBA calibre player, but at a much smaller usage, on a much lower contract and with a significantly different role. He's not necessary here in Toronto, and right now he is just eating up cap space and minutes which is simply wasting resources.

I think this concept is completely overblown. BC would have LOVED to get another scorer. Its not like we have drafted defensive stalwarts to try to hide AB .. because we dont really have any defensive stalwarts! The latest drafts / trades have all been offensive players (albeit those who have proven to not be as good as scorers as AB (yet). (DD, ED, TR, KL). If we were drafting Bismack Byombo .. you might have a point .. but I simply see no evidence of this.

I think this concept is completely overblown. BC would have LOVED to get another scorer. Its not like we have drafted defensive stalwarts to try to hide AB .. because we dont really have any defensive stalwarts! The latest drafts / trades have all been offensive players (albeit those who have proven to not be as good as scorers as AB (yet). (DD, ED, TR, KL). If we were drafting Bismack Byombo .. you might have a point .. but I simply see no evidence of this.

What about Colangelo/Casey's proclomations towards Jonas? (He was the Chandler to their Dirk) Ross? And its not only the draft. Gray and Reggie were both supposed to cover for Bargnani's weaknesses. Amir moved out of position so Bargnani would have less help defense to provide. Looking to trade Calderon to make life easier on Bargnani defensively. Rucker/Colangelo also claimed Lowry and Fields would do this to.

What about Colangelo/Casey's proclomations towards Jonas? (He was the Chandler to their Dirk) Ross? And its not only the draft. Gray and Reggie were both supposed to cover for Bargnani's weaknesses. Amir moved out of position so Bargnani would have less help defense to provide. Looking to trade Calderon to make life easier on Bargnani defensively. Rucker/Colangelo also claimed Lowry and Fields would do this to.

Its not overblown.

Do you really think we passed over a "scorer" in order to take JV so that we could protect AB's touches / shots? If so, then who?

As for Ross, he IS a scorer .. based on your argument, we might have taken Drummond (who gets his points thru lobs and put backs).

The fact that the organization tries to market the complements of their players together is just that - marketing. Id be dissapointed if they didnt do that.

AB has a lot of issues. Hes a lazy piece of shit who will probably never realize half of his potential. But to claim that he should be blamed for some conspiracy theory that the organization refused to add / draft scorers because of him is going a little too far ...

Addition by subtraction doesn't exist. If a guy isn't good enough to start he comes off the bence. If he can't do that, he's a body in case someone get's injured. Regardless, unless he's a locker room trouble maker, which Bargs ihas never been reported to be. Just removing him from the team doesn't make us better. At the very least you can have him come off the bench and open up the scoring.

"When Life gives you lemons, you clone those Lemons to make super lemons!"
-Scudworth

Do you really think we passed over a "scorer" in order to take JV so that we could protect AB's touches / shots? If so, then who?

As for Ross, he IS a scorer .. based on your argument, we might have taken Drummond (who gets his points thru lobs and put backs).

The fact that the organization tries to market the complements of their players together is just that - marketing. Id be dissapointed if they didnt do that.

AB has a lot of issues. Hes a lazy piece of shit who will probably never realize half of his potential. But to claim that he should be blamed for some conspiracy theory that the organization refused to add / draft scorers because of him is going a little too far ...

Holy strawman batman.

one of the reasons this team has so few scorers is because Colangelo felt comfortable or confident (or deemed it necessary due to draft status/pay etc) to use Bargnani the way he has, and in turn has sought other players to cover for him rather than other players that could replace him or his role

Addition by subtraction doesn't exist. If a guy isn't good enough to start he comes off the bence. If he can't do that, he's a body in case someone get's injured. Regardless, unless he's a locker room trouble maker, which Bargs ihas never been reported to be. Just removing him from the team doesn't make us better. At the very least you can have him come off the bench and open up the scoring.

Sure it exists. It's called redundency.

Turning your C into a SG, when you already have one, is going to hurt you everytime.

To correct the above, you need to find a SG that plays like a 7 footer. Unrealisitic.

We are acutally seeing the most improvment, by finally having 2 BIGS on the floor together. Without Andrea.

We have been playing with one big man for too long. I know Andrea can play big, he just hasn't been doing it. Davis has outshined him this year and I don't think he gets plays drawn up for him the way Andrea did.

The problem is that we still don't have a big with a consistent post game. As a result, we don't have a player who demands double-teams every time he touches the ball.

Back in the Bosh days, there were much more open looks created simply from throwing him the ball in the block, waiting for the 2nd defender, and then swinging the ball around to the open man. This element of easy basketball no longer exists for the Raptors.

I think your reasoning is sound, but Andrea came on as a player with Bosh's departure. His ppg increased as did his confidence.

When I see him play, I don't see defenders in his face, I cant remember me yelling, "why are you forcing it", from my recollection he is getting a lot of open looks and good oportunities at the basket, just has not been as acurate this year as he was in the previous years without Bosh.

Addition by subtraction doesn't exist. If a guy isn't good enough to start he comes off the bence. If he can't do that, he's a body in case someone get's injured. Regardless, unless he's a locker room trouble maker, which Bargs ihas never been reported to be. Just removing him from the team doesn't make us better. At the very least you can have him come off the bench and open up the scoring.

I don't think Bargnani has been a bad teammate or locker room troublemaker, but I think it's fair to wonder whether that might change if he returns to the lineup to the role that so many of us hope for him. No starting spot, drastically cut minutes, long stretches on the bench watching when he isn't in one of his offensive grooves, sitting during crunch time, etc. That would be a very different picture than the one that he has been promised for so long by Colangelo, and the cynical part of me wonders whether it will become an issue inside the room. This isn't a problem unique to Bargnani really; Frankly I'd expect any player in the league to be pissed off if they had the rug pulled out from under them in that fashion, and I've been a Bargs hater for years.

Your other point about moving a player down the rotation based on his performance is true in theory but not necessarily in practice. Having ~11 million dollars tied up in any bench player means that they are going to be vastly overpaid, especially if he's going to be a guy that may or may not get many minutes on a night to night basis. Amnestying him this summer would allow that cap space to be used (hopefully) on pieces that will have much more of an impact on the team's success and provide much greater value for the franchise moving forward.